Calendar of Oral Arguments from 1 October 2001 to 30 June 2002

Monday, October 1, 2001

00-860 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. v. MALESKO, JOHN E.

Questions presented: Whether a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), should be implied against a private corporation acting under color of federal law.

Questions presented: 1. This Court previously held in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993), that 'equitable relief, as used in 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3),means those types of relief that were typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages.) The Ninth Circuit held that enforcing a recoupment of benefits provision in a health plan violates this prohibition against seeking compensatory damages simply because recouping benefit payments involves a monetary payment. The Court therefore held that federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction over action brought by ERISA plan fiduciaries to enforce recoupment provisions. Did the Court err?

Tuesday, October 2, 2001

00-507 CHICKASAW NATION v. UNITED STATES

Questions presented: Whether, under the applicable Indian-law canons of statutory construction, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, by 25 U.S.C. 2719(d)(1)'s express incorporation of Chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code, confers on Indian tribes conducting gaming, operations the same exemption from wagering taxes afforded to states by Chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code?

Questions presented: Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by cable television systems that are simultaneously used to provide high-speed Internet access and conventional cable television programming. 2. Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by providers of wireless telecommunications services. Consolidated with 00-843.

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

00-568 NEW YORK, ET AL. v. FERC, ET AL.

Questions presented: Whether, given that Congress in 1935 stated that federal regulation extends only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the states (Federal Power Act (FPA) 201 (a), and the transmission of energy from generators to retail customers in the same state was then subject to regulation by the states (as it has been since 1935), may the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preempt state jurisdiction over such intrastate retail transmissions of electric energy?

Questions presented: 1. Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., to regulate all transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, including interstate transmission of electric energy that is sold to retail customers at a bundled price. Whether FERC had jurisdiction and the obligation under the EPA to eliminate pervasive undue discrimination in the provision of interstate electric energy transmission services by requiring transmission-owning utilities to provide interstate transmission services on the same terms to all users, for all interstate transmissions, including transmissions dundled with retail sales. Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that FERC had discretion to interpret the FPA as denying FERC the necessary jurisdiction to remedy the undue discrimination it had found in the provision of interstate transmission.

Questions presented: Are patents issued under 35 U.S.C. 101 Granting the right to exclude others from sexually reproducing plants or plant varieties, or from selling or using plants or plant varieties reproduced by means of sexual reproduction (by seed), invalid because the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, 7 U.S.C.2321, et seq., and the Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U.S.C. 161-164, are the exclusive means of obtaining a federal statutory right to exclude others from reproducing, selling, or using plants or plant varieties?

Tuesday, October 9, 2001

00-1045 TRW INC. v. ANDREWS, ADELAIDE

Questions presented: Whether Section 618 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act contains an implicit exception incorporating the discovery rule that permits a suit for violation of the Act to be brought within two years of the date of the discovery of the injury even in the absence of any willful misrepresentation.

Questions presented: Whether a federal agency, when disciplining or removing an employee for misconduct pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., may take account of prior disciplinary action that are the subject of pending grievance proceedings.

Questions presented: Whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages.

Questions presented: 1. Did the U.S. court of appeals for the eighth circuit err by affirming the district court's denial of lee's petition for habeas corpus because his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United states Constitution were violated when the trial court refused to grant him a 19 hour continuance to contact his three subpoenaed alibi witnesses who unexpectedly did not return after a lunch break? 2. Should a hearing have been held on the habeas corpus to at least consider the testimony of the alibi witnesses to the effect that they were told by a court personnel, to leave? 3. In the circumstances in Remon Lee's case , was his federal violation regarding a denied request for a short continuance, procedurally barred from federal court? 4. Has Remon Lee made a substantial showing of actual innocence according to the schlup standard for his alibi witnesses to be explored further to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice?

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

00-795 ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION

Questions presented: The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, prohibits, interalia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of any visual depiction that appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 1998). It also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. IV 1998). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Questions presented: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a State to prove that a sexually violent predator cannot control his criminal sexual behavior before the State can civilly commit him for residential care and treatment?

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

00-730 ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. MINETA, SEC. OF TRANSP.

Questions presented: 1. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination. 2. Whether the United States Department of Transportation's current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

Questions presented: Whether the United States Coast Guard has exercised statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health concerning the working conditions of employees (29 U.S.C.653(b)(1) on uninspected vessels (46 U.S.C. 2101(43) so as to displace application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.

Monday, November 5, 2001

00-1214 ALABAMA v. SHELTON, LeREED

Questions presented: In the light of the actual imprisonment standard established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), and refined in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), does the imposition of a suspended or conditional sentence in a misdemeanor case invoke a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest and an adverse effect in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation where a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it reasonably should have known?

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

00-1260 UNITED STATES v. KNIGHTS, MARK J.

Questions presented: Whether respondent's agreement to a term of probation that authorized any law enforcement officer to search his person or premises with or without a warrant, and with or without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, constituted a valid consent to a search by a law enforcement officer investigating crimes.

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

00-1089 TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY, INC. v. WILLIAMS, ELLA

Questions presented: Whether the Sixth Circuit correctly held--in conflict with the established rule in other circuits--that an impairment precluding an individual form performing only a limited number of tasks associated with a specific job qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

Questions presented: Whether the South Carolina court's refusal to inform petitioner's sentencing jury that he would never be eligible for parole if the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment rather than to death violated Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994).

Tuesday, November 27, 2001

00-1073 OWASSO INDEP. SCH. DIST. v. FALVO, KRISTJA, ETC., ET AL.

Questions presented: Whether the Family Education Right and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232 g, which requires educational institutions to preserve the confidentiality of education records, which are defined as those records, files documents, and other materials which -(I) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution, 1232g(a) (4) (A), prohibits public school teachers of pre-secondary school students form utilizing their students to grade each other's homework papers, quizzes, and test by having the students exchange papers and mark he correct and incorrect answers thereon as the teacher goes over the answers aloud in class.

Questions presented: 1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously departed from the totality-of-the-circumstances test that governs reasonable-suspicion determinations under the Fourth Amendment by holding that seven facts observed by a law enforcement officer were entitled to no weight and could not be considered as a matter of law. 2. Whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Border Patrol agent in this case had reasonable suspicion that justified a stop of a vehicle near the Mexican border.

Wednesday, November 28, 2001

00-1187 McKUNE, WARDEN, ET AL. v. LILE, ROBERT G.

Questions presented: Whether the revocation of correctional institution privileges violates the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination where the inmate has no liberty interest in the lost privileges and such revocation is based upon the inmate's failure to accept responsibility for his crimes as part of a sex offender treatment program?

Monday, December 3, 2001

00-1249 THOMAS, CAREN C., ET AL. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT

Questions presented: 1. Does immediate access to the courts following a denial of a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum constitute prompt judicial review, as required by Freedman v. Maryland, without regard to the length of time allowed for a judicial decision? 2. Must an ordinance requiring a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum include each of the procedural safeguards established in Freedman v. Maryland, or is that case only applicable to sexually explicit speech presented by adult entertainment businesses? 2. Is a content-neutral ordinance that requires a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum analyzed as a prior restraint or under the more deferential standard applicable to time, place and manner regulations? 4. May a plaintiff bring a facial challenge to a permit ordinance which restricts political speech in a public forum without first having to prove that the ordinance has been unconstitutionally applied to him because of the government's hostility to the plaintiff or his proposed speech? 5. Can an ordinance requiring a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum include unfettered discretion to issue or withold permits?

Questions presented: Whether the income first requirement of the Wisconsin Medicaid spousal impoverishment statute, Wis. State. 49.455(8)(d), requiring that the income of the institutionalized spouse be attributed to the community spouse before excess resources are transferred to the community spouse, conflicts with 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5.

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

00-1250 US AIRWAYS, INC. v. BARNETT, ROBERT

Questions presented: 1. Whether, as the en banc Ninth Circuit held below, the ADA requires an employer to reassign a disabled employee to a different position as a ''reasonable accommodation'' even though another employee is entitled to hold the position under the employer's bona fide and established seniority system, or whether, as other courts of appeals have held, the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement does not compel an employer to disregard the rights of other employees under its seniority policy.

Questions presented: Is a city's ordinance, which prohibits the operation of more than one adult entertainment business at a single location, including an adult bookstore and an adult arcade, invalid because the city did not study the negative effects of such combinations of adult businesses, but rather relied on judicially approved statutory precedent from other jurisdictions?

Wednesday, December 5, 2001

00-1531 VERIZON MARYLAND INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N OF MD

Questions presented: 2. Whether , if 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6) does not apply, a federal district court has independent subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 to determine whether a state public utility commission's action interpreting or enforcing an interconnection agreement violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Questions presented: 1. Whether a state commission's action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved section 252 interconnection agreement is a 'determination under section 252 and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U.S.C. Sect. 252 (e)(6). 2. Whether a state commission's acceptance of Congress's invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provided that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. 3. Whetheran official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal Telecommunication Act to 1996 can be maintained under the Ex parte Young doctrine.

Monday, January 7, 2002

00-1167 TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING

Questions presented: Whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Taking Clause of the United States Constitution?

Questions presented: Whether the Secretary has acted permissibly in providing by regulation that (with certain exceptions) employer-provided leave does not count against the Act's 12 week entitlement until the employer notifies the employee of its designation as FMLA leave.

Questions presented: 1. Whether every claim-narrowing amendment designed to comply with any provision of the Patent Act---including those provisions not related to prior art---automatically creates prosecution history estoppel regardless of the reason for the amendment; and 2. Whether the finding of prosecution history estoppel completely bars the application of the doctrine of equivalents.

Wednesday, January 9, 2002

00-1567 YOUNG, CORNELIUS P., ET UX. v. UNITED STATES

Questions presented: 1. Whether the Youngs' 1992 income tax obligation was discharged by the entry of a discharge in their 1997 chapter 7 bankruptcy case where the three-year period set forth at 507(a)(8)(A)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code had elapsed between the due date of their tax return and the filing of their chapter 7 bankruptcy case. 2. Whether the three-year period set forth at Bankruptcy Code 507(a)(8)(A)(I) was tolled or extended by the length of time that the Youngs were debtors in a prior chapter 13 bankruptcy, notwithstanding the absence of any language in 507(a)(8)(A)(I) or elsewhere that would allow such tolling.

Questions presented: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in conflict with every other circuit that has decided the question, that a plaintiff who has knowingly allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination statutes may nevertheless sue on such time-barred claims whenever incidents within the limitations period are sufficiently related to the otherwise time-barred claims.

Monday, January 14, 2002

00-1831 UNITED STATES v. CRAFT, SANDRA L.

Questions presented: Whether the federal tax lien that arises by operation of law in law property and rights to property of a delinquent taxpayer (26 U.S.C. 6321) attaches to the rights of that taxpayer in property held in a tenancy by the entirety.

Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals erroneously conclude, contrary to other of appeals, that an inmate bringing a claim for excessive force need not have exhausted available administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Legal Reform Act's mandatory exhaustion requirement, 42 U.S.C.1997e(a)?

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

00-1595 HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUND v. NLRB

Questions presented: Whether an undocumented alien who-without his employer's knowledge-obtained employment by presenting his employer with fraudulent immigration documents, is entitled to backpay as compensation for a violation of the National Labor Relations Act if the undocumented alien never was legally authorized to work in the United States during the backpay period.

Questions presented: Must an employment discrimination plaintiff do more in his complaint than put his employer on notice of his discrimination claims, I.e., must he also plead specific facts showing that at trial he can make out a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas v. Green?

Questions presented: 1. Whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act if he has a physical or mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last at least 12 months, but his inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of that impairment has not lasted or cannot be expected to last 12 months. 2. Whether a claimant under Title II may be under a disability and entitled to a trial work period if at the time his disability insurance benefits claim is adjudicated, his impairment no longer prevents him from performing substantial gainful activity.

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

00-1214 ALABAMA v. SHELTON, LeREED

Questions presented: In the light of the actual imprisonment standard established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), and refined in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), does the imposition of a suspended or conditional sentence in a misdemeanor case invoke a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel?

Questions presented: Whether the lease clause provided for in 42 U.S.C.1437d(l)(6) (Supp. IV 1998) is violated by such drugrelated criminal activity, regardless of whether it can be shown that the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of the drug activity.

Questions presented: Whether the Ohio Pilot Scholarship and Tutorial Program, which provides scholarship and tutorial funds to a broad class of public and non-public school, low income families comports with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when the recipients are defined without reference to religion and where the identity of the public, secular or religious school of attendance is the result of the independent and free choice of various individuals participating in the Program.

Questions presented: 1. Does a program designed to rescue economically disadvantaged children form a failing public school system by providing scholarships that they may use in private, religious, or suburban public school that choose to participate in the program-and which operates in the context of a broad array of public school choices-violate the First Amendment because in the early stages of the program most of the schools that have agreed to take on scholarship students are religiously affiliated?

Questions presented: 1. In Lilly v. Virginia, this Court declared that for purposes of determining whether the Confrontation Clause precludes the admission of a hearsay statement, the admissibility of the selfinculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement should be assessed separately. Must courts determining whether the Due Process clause mandates the admission of a statement under Green v. Georgia and Mills v. Maryland similarly engage in a separate assessment of the admissibility of the self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement? 2. Did he Supreme Court of Virginia err when, in the sentencing phase of a capital trial, it summarily invoked a state hearsay rule to preclude the defendant from presenting relevant, important, and independently reliable mitigating evidence that the defendant had no other means of presenting to the jury?

Questions presented: Whether Congress may by statute authorize the Federal Maritime Commission to adjudicate complaints filed by private persons against state-run ports, or whether the statutory provision permitting the adjudication of such complaints is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

00-1737 WATCHTOWER BIBLE, ETC. v. STRATTON, OH, ET AL.

Questions presented: Does a municipal ordinance that requires one to obtain a permit prior to engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause and to display upon demand the permit, which contains one's name, violate the First Amendment protection accorded to anonymous pamphleteering or discourse?

Questions presented: The question presented is whether FDAMA's limitation of that exemption to pharmacists who do not solicit prescriptions for or advertise specific compounded drugs is consistent with the First Amendment,

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

00-1406 CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. v. ECHAZABAL, MARIO

Questions presented: Whether a person who is unable to carry out the essential functions of a job without incurring significant risks to the person's own health or life is a qualified individual who satisfies qualified standards for that job within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Questions presented: Whether the time during which a petitioner has failed to properly pursue hi state collateral remedies falls within the meaning of pending set forth by 28 U.S.C. section 2233(d)(2), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's tolling provision.

Questions presented: Whether a stockbroker's fraud is connection with the * * * sale of securities under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, when the stockbroker sells his customer's securities for his own benefit and uses the proceeds for himself, without disclosure to his customer and without authorization to do so.

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

01-332 BD. OF ED., POTTAWATOMIE CTY v. EARLS, LINDSAY, ET AL.

Questions presented: Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals properly determined that s board of education cannot validly exercise its judgment in an effort to deter and eliminate student drug use by enacting a suspicionless drugtesting policy covering students who voluntarily engage in interscholastic competition unless the board has first specifically identified and quantified the actual drug has first specifically identified and quantified the actual drug users among the students to be tested.

Questions presented: 1. Does 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1)divest regional Circuits of jurisdiction to decide appeals of final decisions of district courts in cases wherein the well-pleaded complaint of the prevailing plaintiff does not allege any claim arising under federal law? 3. Did the Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit err in concluding that this action arises under federal patent law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) and 1338(a)?

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

01-131 GISBRECHT, GARY E., ET AL. v. BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA

Questions presented: Whether, when determining a reasonable attorney fee to be paid by the plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406 (b), a court may give no effect to the plaintiff's contract to compensate plaintiff's attorney in terms of a contingent fee taking into account the contingent nature of the fee even when the contingent fee requested is within the statutory limitation of 42 U.S.C. 406(b) for an attorney fee not to exceed 25 percent of the total of the past due benefits, even when it is a criminal offense for an attorney to charge a non-contingent fee, and even when the contingent fee sought is consistent with the prevailing market rate.

Monday, March 25, 2002

01-394 CHRISTOPHER, WARREN, ET AL. v. HARBURY, JENNIFER K.

Questions presented: 1. Whether allegations that senior State Department and National Security Council official withheld information and intentionally misled a private citizen about a foreign rebel leader in the captivity of a foreign government state a violation of the constitutional right of access to the court, when the only claim is that defendants' speech was intentionally misleading and there are no allegations that the plaintiff ever tried to file a lawsuit and was actually hindered in that effort? 2. If the Court concludes that a constitutional violation is properly grounded on allegations such as these, whether government officials violate clearly established law whenever government officials violate clearly established law whenever they allegedly mislead a private citizen or conceal information and it is later claimed that they intended to and did hinder the filing of a hypothetical lawsuit?

Questions presented: 1. By applying a de novo standard of review to a habeas petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, does the court of appeals' ruling conflict with Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.C. 2254 (d)(1) for granting habeas corpus relief to state prisoners on claims that have been previously adjudicated on the merits in state court? 2. May a federal court of appeals bypass the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and presume prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), to find a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, where defense counsel conducts a thorough pre-trial investigation, presents lay and expert witness testimony in support of a mental health defense at trial, conducts direct and cross examination, and addresses the jury at both the guilt and sentencing phase on behalf of his client, and where the state and district courts have previously determined that the defendant demonstrated no actual prejudice from any deficiencies identified in the attorney's performance?

Tuesday, March 26, 2002

01-417 DEVLIN, ROBERT J. v. SCARDELLETTI, ROBERT, ET AL.

Questions presented: Whether a class member who, upon receiving notice of a proposed class action settlement, objects and moves to intervene has standing to appeal the district court's approval of the settlement?

Questions presented: Whether the provision of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct the prohibits a candidate for elective judicial office from announcing his or her views on disputed legal for political issues unconstitutionally impinges on the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

Monday, April 15, 2002

01-455 FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

Questions presented: 1. Whether a breach of contract claim accrues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2501 when Congress enacts a statute alleged to abridge a contractual right to freedom from regulatory covenants upon prepayment of government mortgage loans. 2. Whether a Fifth Amendment takings claim accrues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2501 when Congress enacts a statute alleged to abridge a contractual right to freedom from regulatory covenants upon prepayment of government mortgage loans.

Questions presented: Whether the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence requires a court of appeals automatically to vacate the enhanced sentence, notwithstanding that the defendant did not object to the sentence in the district court, the government introduced overwhelming proof of the fact that supports the enhanced sentence, and the defendant had notice that the fact could be used to seek an enhanced sentence.

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

01-518 BE&K CONSTR. CO. v. NLRB, ET AL.

Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that under Bill johnson 's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), the NLRB may impose liability on an employer for filing a losing retaliatory lawsuit, even if the employer could show the suit was not objectively baseless under Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993)?

Questions presented: Whether an officer who informs a passenger on a bus that the officer is conducting drug and illegal weapons interdiction and asks the passenger for consent to search, while another officer stays at the front of the bus without blocking the exit, has effected a seizure of that passenger within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S.429 (1991).

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

01-309 HOPE, LARRY v. PELZER, MARK, ET AL.

Questions presented: 1. Whether state officials sued in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they have violated statutory or constitutional rights 'clearly established' by a case presenting facts 'materially similar' to those in the plaintiff's case. 2. Whether under the circumstances that must be taken as true at the summary judgment stage of this case, tying a prisoner to a 'hitching post' violates 'clearly established' constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err when it held, contrary to the holdings of the Third, Fourth and Seventh Circuits, that citizens of the British Virgin Islands, were not citizens or subjects of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction and thus could not maintain an action in Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2)?

Monday, April 22, 2002

01-463 UNITED STATES v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC.

Questions presented: Whether the employer's share of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on employee tip income must be determined by accumulating the result of individual audits of individual employees or may instead be based on a reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount of tips received by all employees.

Questions presented: Whether Walton should be overruled in light of this Court's subsequent holding, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed (id.at 490 (internal quotation marks omitted) violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Questions presented: Whether the Eighth Circuit, in agreement with the Fourth Circuit but in conflict with the Third and Sixth Circuits, correctly held that punitive damages may be awarded against a municipal government in an implied private cause of action brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Section 202 of the ADA.

Wednesday, April 24, 2002

01-595 UNITED STATES v. RUIZ, ANGELA

Questions presented: 1. Whether before pleading guilty, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to obtain exculpatory information, including impeachment material, from the government. 2. If so, whether that right may be waived through a plea agreement.

Questions presented: 1. May a student sue a private university for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enforce provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, which disqualify form federal funding educational institutions that have a policy or practice of permitting education records to be released to unauthorized persons?